39 replies to this topic

[Rappy]

Quote

The Dark Knight Rises may be the year's most talked about movie, but it is unlikely to be in the running for major awards come Oscars season.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which stages the world's most high-profile awards ceremony, held a screening for voters on Saturday night at the Samuel Goldwyn theatre in Beverly Hills. The organisation's president, Tom Sherak, spoke in advance to acknowledge the recent shootings at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film did not generate the kind of response from audience members that would suggest a successful awards season run next year.

"People were kind of disappointed," one academy member told the magazine. "It wasn't because of [Colorado]. I just don't think that this picture will get any nominations [beyond technical nods]."

"There was nothing remarkable about the acting," said another academy member. "I don't think it can be nominated as best picture."

The writer Bret Easton Ellis, who is also an academy member, later tweeted: "Not that it really matters, but there was zero love for The Dark Knight Rises at the packed academy screening in Los Angeles tonight."

[x]

[GP007]

The academy can go screw itself. They never look past true stories or some rehashed drama as far as nominations go. You'd be hard pressed to have any action based movie get into it unless the action is part of some war film with drama as the backdrop. A batman movie could have the best acting ever, and I mean ever, and they wouldn't care simple because it's batman, a comic book hero flick to them and nothing more.

[ILikeTobacco]

GP007, on 25 July 2012 - 18:32, said:

A batman movie could have the best acting ever

Except this one didn't, nor did it have anything that was awe inspiringly good. It was an alright movie, but nothing spectacular.

[GP007]

ILikeTobacco, on 25 July 2012 - 18:37, said:

Except this one didn't, nor did it have anything that was awe inspiringly good. It was an alright movie, but nothing spectacular.

That depends on the viewers which is why the academy isn't just a handful of people but a large number. Regardless I was being general about it for the most part. How far back do you have to go to find a pure action movie or a scifi movie nominated for best picture? Last I remember was the lord of the rings movies but even those have a good chunk of drama mixed in. Otherwise I think you have to go way back to the original Indiana Jones movie that was nominated

*edit*

Ok, Inception was also nominated but that movie is a cut above the rest for it's originality alone.

[Hurmoth]

No offense, but the film is just not Oscar worthy. The second film was amazing and definitely Oscar worthy, especially Ledger's performance, but this film, in terms of story, writing and everything, it is a dud.

[threetonesun]

Most action films are entertaining, but they're not great, memorable films.

[GP007]

threetonesun, on 25 July 2012 - 19:02, said:

Most action films are entertaining, but they're not great, memorable films.

I don't agree with that fully. Lots of action films that have went on to span trilogy's or even more are very memorable. Who doesn't remember the original Die Hard movies? Or the original Rambo series? Indiana Jones? And if you expand it to scifi movies well, damn, that just makes the list longer IMO.

My point stands, the acting could be the best ever and they'd still turn a blind eye to it because it's just an action movie or a scifi flick or a comic book hero film or w/e. And Ledger got the Oscar as more of a tribute and over his death than anything else, it was the Academy being politically correct and bending to popular demand and the press (because everyone was calling for it back then). This isn't even the first time they've bent to pressure as well, go a bit farther back and all the bad press they were getting because there hadn't been a African American best actor/actress winner/nominee in so long, so what did they do? Not only nominate two but also have them win.

Now i'm not going to get into it over race or stuff like that, my point is that they'll bend to pressure and what the press/fans want which hardly makes this seem like a objective voting group or w/e. To me they've become a joke.

[sanctified]

That's a biased article: Bret Easton-Ellis full statement was that the film is (in his opinion) the best of the year, but the expectations among judges was sky high.

[vanillaketch]

I like the movie and for a 3rd part of a trilogy it is awesome. It is not Oscar level, but way better than most.

[BoredBozirini]

Its a Batman movie, did people seriously expect anything different?

The only thing Oscar worthy in the whole trilogy was Ledger's performance.

[Nogib]

Let's be honest, the Academy only really likes those dippy movies that come out right before Oscar time because they can't think back over an entire year of movies.

[LaP]

I liked the movie but it's far from Oscar worhty. The second might have been but not this one imo. Still a great movie though.

[Lamp0]

I think it's remarkable how much people gush over these Batman films.

[Rappy]

Lamp0, on 25 July 2012 - 20:31, said:

I think it's remarkable how much people gush over these Batman films.

yeah I enjoy them for what they are but I don't go overboard about them

[Dashel]

The only reason Heath got the Oscar is because he died. The guy that played Dent simply out-acted him. (And I loved Heath's performance)

No surprising from the Oscar folk, I'm sure they have some mildly-retarded movie in mind already.